Credit Case Digest
Content
CASE DIGEST FOR CREDIT TRANSACTIONS
PEOPLE VS. DICK ONG204 SCRA 942 (1991)
Facts:
Accused Dick Ong, one of the depositors of theHome Savings Bank and Trust
Company (HSBTC)opened a savings account with HSBTC with an initialdeposit of
P22.14 in cash and P10,000.00 in check.Ong was allowed to withdraw from his
savingsaccount with the Bank the sum of P5,000.00,without his check undergoing
the usual andreglementary clearance. The withdrawal slip wassigned and approved
by Lino Morfe, then the BranchManager, and accused Lucila Talabis, the
BranchCashier.Subsequently, Ong deposited eleven checks in hissavings account
with the Bank and against which hemade withdrawals against its amount. Again,
thewithdrawal of the amount by Ong was made beforesaid checks were cleared and
the Bank had collectedtheir amounts and with the approval of Talabis.However,
when the Bank presented the elevenchecks issued, deposited and against which
Ongmade withdrawals against its amounts, to theirrespective drawee banks for
payment, they were alldishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds.Because of this,
the Bank filed a criminal action for Estafa against Ong, and the Bank’s officer in
charge Villaran and Talabis.Talabis testified that the approval of the withdrawalsof
Ong against his uncleared checks was inaccordance with the instruction of their
then bankmanager and that it is a kind of accommodationgiven to Ong and also a
common practice of theBank.RTC ruled Ong as guilty for the crime of estafa
butacquitted Villarin and Talabis as their guilt were notproven beyond reasonable
doubt. CA affirmed RTCs decisions.
Issue: What is the nature of bank deposits?
Ruling: No, The Supreme Court held that bank depositsare in the nature of irregular
deposits.Bank deposits are really loans because theyearn interest. Whether fixed,
savings, orcurrent, all bank Adeposits are to be treatedas loans and are to be
covered by the lawon loans.
PEOPLE VS. DICK ONG204 SCRA 942 (1991)
Facts:
Accused Dick Ong, one of the depositors of theHome Savings Bank and Trust
Company (HSBTC)opened a savings account with HSBTC with an initialdeposit of
P22.14 in cash and P10,000.00 in check.Ong was allowed to withdraw from his
savingsaccount with the Bank the sum of P5,000.00,without his check undergoing
the usual andreglementary clearance. The withdrawal slip wassigned and approved
by Lino Morfe, then the BranchManager, and accused Lucila Talabis, the
BranchCashier.Subsequently, Ong deposited eleven checks in hissavings account
with the Bank and against which hemade withdrawals against its amount. Again,
thewithdrawal of the amount by Ong was made beforesaid checks were cleared and
the Bank had collectedtheir amounts and with the approval of Talabis.However,
when the Bank presented the elevenchecks issued, deposited and against which
Ongmade withdrawals against its amounts, to theirrespective drawee banks for
payment, they were alldishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds.Because of this,
the Bank filed a criminal action for Estafa against Ong, and the Bank’s officer in
charge Villaran and Talabis.Talabis testified that the approval of the withdrawalsof
Ong against his uncleared checks was inaccordance with the instruction of their
then bankmanager and that it is a kind of accommodationgiven to Ong and also a
common practice of theBank.RTC ruled Ong as guilty for the crime of estafa
butacquitted Villarin and Talabis as their guilt were notproven beyond reasonable
doubt. CA affirmed RTCs decisions.
Issue: What is the nature of bank deposits?
Ruling: No, The Supreme Court held that bank depositsare in the nature of irregular
deposits.Bank deposits are really loans because theyearn interest. Whether fixed,
savings, orcurrent, all bank Adeposits are to be treatedas loans and are to be
covered by the lawon loans.
